prop 37 is the most important thing today

[Large Sarge]

getting frankenfood labeled, derailing monsanto and the zio freaks.

for our california residents

with the size of california, and general labeling practices, once one state passes this law, then all companies will follow for all states.

thats all I am aware of

marijuana legalized in washington state, oregon, and colorado

anything else?

[Shami-Amourae]

Yes, it's the main reason I voted. Everyone I know of personally who voted is/has voted for Prop 37. It's very popular. I wonder how the Elite will get around this one.

[General of Darkness]

FYI

"PROP 37 AUTHORIZES SHAKEDOWN LAWSUITS (http://www.noprop37.com/facts/trial-lawyers/)" (http://www.naturalgrocers.com/store-info/blog/analysis-no-prop-37-plays-fast-and-loose-facts#Back%20to%20Index) [B]"Prop 37 was written by a trial lawyer to benefit trial lawyers. Its primary sponsor is a trial lawyer whose firm and organization have made more than $3 million suing under the terms of another proposition he helped write. Prop 37 creates a whole new class of “headhunter lawsuits,” allowing lawyers to sue family farmers and grocers without any proof of harm. It subjects farmers, grocers and food companies to huge litigation costs and lawyer payouts."


Food Labeling Proposition: “Right to Know” or Right to Sue?? May 14, 2012
The proposed food labeling proposition aimed for California’s November 2012 ballot was written by attorney Jim Wheaton – a trial lawyer who helped write Prop. 65 and whose law firm has profited more than $3 million from suing California businesses in the last decade under the provisions of this proposition.
California State Attorney General records show that Wheaton’s Environmental Law Foundation has received more than $3 million in Proposition 65 settlements for attorney fees and “other distributions” between 2001 – 2010. 2001 was the first year the settlements were available online. (Source: California Attorney General Annual Summaries of Private Settlements (http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/prop65/Alpert_Report2009.pdf). See summary below).
Much like Wheaton’s new food labeling measure, Proposition 65 enacted new labeling requirements on businesses. But in the last two decades, Prop. 65 has been abused by certain plaintiffs’ lawyers seeking to shake down small business owners into paying huge settlements that benefit only the lawyers.
In fact, at least $482 million has been paid by companies settling Proposition 65 lawsuits between 1989 and 2011. (Source: California Attorney General website, and the U.S. House Committee on Small Business, Hearing on Proposition 65’s Effect on Small Business, HR Rep. No. 106-38 at 43, October 1999).
Similar to Prop. 65, the food labeling proposition creates a new category of lawsuits, allowing any private citizen (i.e. lawyers) to sue, claiming a food company, grocer or farmer has violated the labeling provisions, even if the alleged mislabeling caused no harm or damage.
“… the consumer bringing the action need not establish any specific damage from, or prove any reliance on, the alleged violation.”
This language subjects family farmers, grocers and food companies to enormous risk of lawsuit and litigation costs, even if they have done nothing wrong.
The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst Office which reviews all proposed ballot measures and reports fiscal impacts to the state of California, agreed the threat of lawsuits was significant, saying the measure will result in “unknown, but potentially significant costs” for the state: (http://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2011/110813.aspx):


“The measure specifies that consumers could sue for violation of the measure’s provisions.”
“In order to bring such action forward, the consumer would not be required to demonstrate any specific damage from the alleged violation (emphasis added).”
“…the state would incur additional costs to process and hear the additional cases. The Attorney General and local district attorneys may also incur some costs…”
The proposition would result in “unknown, but potentially significant, costs for the courts, the Attorney General, and district attorneys due to litigation resulting from… this measure.”

As the official proponent and primary drafter of the proposition, Mr. Wheaton and his organizations would be in prime position to file countless lawsuits in order to reap huge settlements and fees.
http://noprop37.com/uploads/1337097791-chart-1-1.png

[vacuum]

FYI

"PROP 37 AUTHORIZES SHAKEDOWN LAWSUITS (http://www.noprop37.com/facts/trial-lawyers/)"


Shouldn't take them long to clean their act up when anyone who eats food can sue them.

[Uncle Salty]

This law is not necessary.

If a product is not labeled "non-gmo" then it is gmo. And all companies that are not gmo will label their products as such. So, we as consumers get to make the same informed decision regardless of this bill.

[vacuum]

This law is not necessary.

If a product is not labeled "non-gmo" then it is gmo. And all companies that are not gmo will label their products as such. So, we as consumers get to make the same informed decision regardless of this bill.

But that hasn't happened.

Not to mention, if 99% of the ingredients are non-gmo but 1% is gmo, you can't put a non-gmo label on it. Therefore, the burden on those affirming non-gmo status is almost infinitely greater than those stating gmo status.

[chad]

i've seen a weird thing lately. we always buy amy's brand stuff for the kids because it's largely organic and non-gmo. all of the mac and cheese switched last week from being organic to "70% organic." wtf?

[freespirit]

i've seen a weird thing lately. we always buy amy's brand stuff for the kids because it's largely organic and non-gmo. all of the mac and cheese switched last week from being organic to "70% organic." wtf?

organic is more expensive...cost cutting measures.

[vacuum]

i've seen a weird thing lately. we always buy amy's brand stuff for the kids because it's largely organic and non-gmo. all of the mac and cheese switched last week from being organic to "70% organic." wtf?

There are 3 usda categories:
100% organic: must be completely organic
organic: must be 95% organic
made with organic ingredients: must be at least 70% organic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification#United_States_of_America

Therefore, that organic stuff you've been buying could still have 5% synthetic ingredients in it.

Another reason it makes more sense to confirm that something is synthetic or gmo, rather than try to affirm that it isn't.

[lapis]

Yes, it's the main reason I voted.

Me too. But I don't think it will pass judging from all the huge glossy "No on 37" mailers I've been getting. I'm sure teevee is saturated with ads as well.

[Shami-Amourae]

Me too. But I don't think it will pass judging from all the huge glossy "No on 37" mailers I've been getting. I'm sure teevee is saturated with ads as well.

There's a popular "Libertarian" (Neo-Conservative with Libertarian tendencies) radio show called the John and Ken Show here. They have come out against 37 and a majority of their audience is giving them Hell on it. It's good people here in California are more aware on their own on this issue at least. Most Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians I know are united in favor of it. It's only the establishment media that's trying to demonize it. People are seeing through it though.